How does biology explain the low numbers of women in CS? Hint: it doesn't.

[terriko]

This is an updated version of what I used to do back-of-the-napkin style on whatever paper was handy when someone told me in person that women just weren't good at math, and that's why there were so few women in computer science. I'm not sure what possesses people to say stuff like that to female mathematicians, really.

How does biology explain the low numbers of women in CS? Hint: it doesn't.

View more presentations from Terri Oda.

I wrote it between the hours of 4 and 6am because I was having severe insomnia, but a few people have looked at it since and don't seem to think I'm insane, so I'm sharing it. :)

Like it? Hate it? Catch the Mathnet reference? Let me know.

Comments

Math

[(Anonymous)]

Math is hard. Let's read SF novels. Roar.

Asad

[zorkian]

Right on. Now let's spread the word. I want more people to become programmers. :-)

[damned_colonial]

You know what I'm gonna say, right? <broken-record>CROSSPOST!</broken-record>

[terriko]

Of course. :) I was actually going to do it last night, but by the time the final slideshare conversion finished I was too sleepy to write anything more coherent to go with. Although in hindsight, I probably didn't need to write much to go with it anyhow.

[terriko]

me too!

I hit hottest slideshare presentation on facebook this morning and last night, as well as twitter at some point, so hopefully that means people are seeing it.

A friend suggested I actually give the presentation next time we do outreach programs for younger girls, which amuses me because I never intended to actually *present* this presentation, but maybe it'll happen yet!

I'm really enjoying watching it spread. Feel free to repost anywhere :)

[damned_colonial]

Yay, and it's up!

[heliumbreath]

Computer Science requires more of an algorithmic kind of thinking than the numerically-oriented mathematics stuff; I found a course in Symbolic Logic from the Philosophy department more useful than anything from the Math department, in that regard. So it's not quite the same thing. Mind, I've always said that in order to do programs about something, you needed to know the other discipline too, so Mathematics for numerical analysis, English (or others as applicable) for textual analysis, Physics for ballistic predictors, and the like.

That said, getting to the matter of why there aren't more women in CS may be more of a social thing. Why aren't there more men in nursing, for example? It could be a matter of perceived gender roles among teenagers.

[terriko]

Computer science algorithmic analysis requires, among other things, pretty basic inductive proofs. These are taught in first year for math students, which is why we all considered CS students dumber than slime mould when they invariably couldn't understand induction in 3rd year and we have to listen to them whine about it in algorithms class (which was one of the cross-listed ones).

So actually, yes, it requires stuff from the math department, but it is apparently not always the stuff CS folk actually *take*.

(To be fair, our department did try to teach inductive proofs to first year students. When I was an undergraduate, ~60% of CS students dropped that course after failing the midterm and had to take it later...)

[heliumbreath]

I should probably disclaim that I studied CS a very long time ago (Calvin, class of '83) and it was then a newly-established major program there. CS curricula generally are likely to have gotten a lot more refined in the years between our trips through the system, though the remaining gray matter in my head probably isn't similarly improving with time.

A quick look at one of my old textbooks shows induction covered, and I do remember the concept.

Induction

[(Anonymous)]

Induction is just like recursion, only backwards. You'd think that this would be easy to explain to CS undergrads, EXCEPT that very many of them have serious problems with recursion, judging by my experiences attempting to impart ML, scheme, Prolog...

I blame Javadoctrination. Will somebody please think of the children, and not teach them Java first thing?

Re: Induction

[(Anonymous)]

Signed,

You Know Who *sigh*

Re: Induction

[(Anonymous)]

You're not the only one: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html

For the record, my *high school grade 11* computer science course included (meaningful*) recursion. In Pascal. And had a >80% pass rate, including students with no major aptitude for CS/math who were destined to be liberal arts majors. The pass rate in the first year engineering "Problem Solving and Computers" course is 50%, after curving the grades.

I'm gonna stop ranting now, before I get too carried away.

Alex

*meaningful = used for problems that actually benefit from recursive solutions, like graph traversals and the like. Not just calculating n!.

Mathnet?

[(Anonymous)]

There's a Mathnet reference in there? Where? I just went through it for the second or third time, and can't find it.

Alex

Re: Mathnet?

[terriko]

It's pretty simple. You just have to imagine a different voice on slide 2. ;)